Archived decisions

Contact: Roger Lawes, ext 6743 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 On 6 September 2006 a training session was held for Members of the Regulatory Committee. The purpose of the session was to consider four items of committee procedures which had been commented on in recent months:

(i) presentations at committee;

(ii) deputations;

(iii) site visits; and

(iv) the annual tour and explore the opportunities for improvement.

This report summarises the discussion and highlights matters for debate and decision.

2. The Matters Discussed

2.1 Over recent months various formats have been explored to provide Members with a visual presentation of items for consideration. These have included PowerPoint presentations of site layouts, photographs showing site characteristics and plans and elevations in committee papers. Committee reports have also become more lengthy as experience has shown that Members want more background information about both the history of sites and the details of proposals. The question for Members was "Is the balance of written and illustrative material about right and could it be improved?"

2.2 Notwithstanding the written reports and the officer presentations, local Members and the local community are increasingly wanting to become more involved in the planning process. As more is done to engage local residents and businesses in pre-application discussions the direct impact on the Regulatory Committee is the increasing number of deputations. While in itself this involvement is to be welcomed, observers are suggesting that the inevitable personal nature of many deputees is masking the complexity of the facts and issues on planning applications which makes a balanced decision less likely. A possible solution is to change Regulatory

Committee procedure to allow questions to be put to deputees. The question for Members was how such an approach could be managed to avoid both prolonging committee meetings and charges of bias.

2.3 With the burgeoning number of Member commitments to non-Regulatory Committee matters, it is becoming more difficult for many Members regularly to attend site visits. The public reaction when only a few Members are able to attend a visit is usually negative: largely because they do not properly understand the purpose of the visit or the fact that some Members may already be well-acquainted with the site. The question for Members was whether to continue with the existing arrangements or explore the consequences of changes; for example to establish a small Panel, or Panels, to undertake site visits and report back.

2.4 The annual tours for Members are a key feature in developing an understanding and appreciation of the complexity of the issues surrounding development control. The timing of tours has been debated in the past. Arrangements have always fallen foul of other Member priorities. The question for Members concern the length of the tour, the type of sites visited and whether the tours should extend beyond the county to visit developments which may, sometime in the future, be promoted in Hampshire.

3. Feedback from the Discussions

3.1 The main conclusion was the total inadequacy of the Conference Room as a venue for a committee meeting. Members were aware that an alternative venue will need to be found. Notwithstanding this need, whatever the venue the overwhelming issues were the need for some form of amplification so that Members, officers and the public could both hear and be heard; and for effective ventilation.

3.2 Members supported the experiment with PowerPoint presentations but suggested both that staff needed to be better trained in its use and that it should be used to illustrate, not repeat matters in the paperwork. It was important, for example, that key plans and elevations are included in the report.

3.3 It was noted that the reports prepared for Rights of Way items could follow a standard format and that one outcome of this approach was that they were consistently clear. There was a general format for planning reports but because of the uniqueness of each application Members agreed that it was less easy to achieve a consistent format. The requirement was to cover the relevant issues in the most concise and understandable way, regardless of the application type. To help reduce the volume of paperwork it was suggested that previous reports need not be attached. Finally, as a matter of detail, it was suggested that on the front page there should be a reference to the county division for the proposal and the name of the local Member.

3.4 Members were keenly aware of the increased expectations within the local community to address the Committee and seek to influence the outcome. They recognised that there was a fine judgement between seeming to discourage deputation to avoid overloading the Committee and wanting to gather all the evidence to help ensure that the correct decision was made. Members discussed the local arrangements of which they were aware and heard from officers about the process in Cambridgeshire. On balance they felt it would be useful to pilot a procedure whereby cross examination of deputees and applicants could take place.

3.5 There was a difference of opinion between those who supported the notion of a Site Visit Panel reporting to committee and those who felt that the present arrangement, an expectation that all Members attend site visits, should be maintained. Some went even further and suggested that a log should be kept of attendees and sanctions taken against those who failed routinely to attend. Whatever the outcome it was agreed that the dates ought to be established as part of the annual Members' diary routine and printed in the Members' diary. There was a consensus that only in very special and unavoidable circumstances should site visits take place in August.

3.6 Members agreed that the annual tour(s) should be used to monitor the outcomes of committee decisions and that it would also be appropriate for one-off trips, at a time set aside for a site visit, to view developments which may, sometime in the future, be promoted in Hampshire. Tours for training purposes should be considered separately. There was no support for resurrecting the annual Rights of Way tour.

4. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

4.1 The training event provided Members with the opportunity to discuss various procedural matters where changes might help to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the decision-making process.

4.2 The refurbishment of Ashburton Court - in the event the project proceeds - will result in a committee room that is more fit for purpose than the existing conference room in Ashburton Court. The question is what the temporary arrangement - or an alternative if the refurbishment does not proceed - might be. The suggestion that an external venue that is already set up to deal with committee meetings, for example at a district council, have been explored and discounted. Property, Business and Regulatory Services Department is investigating how one of the rooms elsewhere in The Castle complex might be refitted to provide audio-visual aids. It may be that the Chairman and others should be involved in these discussions. In terms of the practical comments about the nature of PowerPoint presentations and the form and content of reports, Members' views are noted and action will be taken.

4.3 A procedure to enable the cross-examination of deputees requires careful consideration both of the process and the constitutional implications. Even a pilot process should not be undertaken lightly. A way forward might be to nominate a small working party of Members to work with the officers in devising a way forward.

4.4 The management of site visits caused the strongest disagreements between Members, with both strong support and strong opposition for a Site Visit Panel as the solution to the problem of the lack of attendance at site visits. This is a matter that only the Committee can decide.

4.5 Finally, Members have always considered that Members' tours were a worthwhile practice, particularly if, as in previous years, they have involved visiting sites where the decision was finally balanced. Continued support for tours is therefore welcome.

Recommendation

That the Committee:

(i) nominates the Chairman and others to discuss with Property, Business and Regulatory Services the temporary requirements for the committee venue pending the refurbishment of Ashburton Court;

(ii) nominates a small working party of Members to work with the officers in devising a pilot scheme for the cross-examination of deputees;

(iii) agrees the approach to attendance at site visits; and

(iv) requests the Chief Executive to ensure that the dates for site visits are printed in the Members' diary.

1143/RL